Topic: A fair and strong Bitcoin fork design exploration, "Faircoin" - page 3. (Read 5002 times)

FYI I did quit playing 2 months ago, partly because of economic issues. (It's prone to inflation due to Botfarms selling ingame gold for money)

So you have a point there crazy_rabbit.
However the issue wouldn't be solved by choosing any arbitrary scale and hard-code it into the software. Of course it's more convenient to deal in a certain range of magnitude more familiar to us.
But that wouldn't solve any economic problems like inflation, deflation and stagnation. Only the right model coupled with the right social aspect can do that.



Richy_T, I encourage you to leave this thread.

I think "Mike" might catch on, BTW. :-)

That's about 1.5 Millis or 1502 Mikes.



When I was younger, one GBP was worth about 1000 Italian Lira. They have since tweaked that but I don't think it was a big issue (other than being a bit embarrassing for the Italians)

CommieCoin?

I'd like to propose the "Really fair coin (with social justice)". At midnight GMT, all the coins are added together and evenly divided between all users. This solves the early adopter and hoarding problems and since everyone has access to cash, the rfcoin economy should be booming.

I might be out on a limb here but I suspect it seems silly to you BECAUSE you play Diablo3. I'm in the majority here when I say I don't play Diablo3, or even videogames for that matter. Most people don't actually substitute the zeros in their heads and the redenomination of currencies when there get to be too many zeros happens by central banks all the time. Infact Iran is up for one very soon: http://www.alsumaria.tv/news/56866/iraq-to-cut-off-dinar-zeros-by-january-2013/en

The central question for all cryptocurrencies long term success is if we are building a money system people can use or a money system that only 'Diablo3' players can use. If America still can't get on the metric system, you're not going to get people to wrap their heads around .00150243601BTC.

That said, even for your fellow Diablo3 players who are doing the substitution probably are just rounding to the nearest quarter million more often then not. The technical increase in precision is lost in practice if people just don't want to bother with the numbers and round up for convenience.

If you need a real-world example, just look at real estate prices. People don't advertise to sell homes for 1235469 USD, do they? They sell them for 1.3 million.

All that precision might be necessary for calculating taxes and bank loans, etc... (or the financial 'diablo3' players) but if buyers and sellers didn't need to do that, a seller and buyer would settle for 1.3 million in cash and leave it at that.

It's our arrogance as numerically orientated, technologically literate, an logically reasoned people to assume everyone is as 'efficient' as we are. And that arrogance could be the difference between failure and success.

There are several chains that have to survive on transaction fees.

So few people mined them that they were too vulnerable, thus only GRouPcoin stuck it out as a blockchain so the rest could watch how it survives as an aid in making their decision as to when to go back to blockchain form. Yet GRouPcoin does not survive only on transaction fees, so those that moved away temporarily from blockchain format are waiting not only for merged mining to be robust, as demonstrated to them by GRouPcoin's actual experience as a merged mined coin, but also for their expected transaction fees to be sufficient to attract merged mining.

Since GRouPcoin are not being valued very highly, the fact that GRouPcoin mints coins need not subtract from GRouPcoin's usefulness as a "weathervane" for deciding when/if it is "safe enough" for all the transaction-fees-only coins to move back to blockchain format, since the amount of value miners obtain by merged-mining GRouPcoins is hopefully, at its current low valuation, no higher than the amount of value the transaction fees alone of a more reasonably valued coin would be. (See http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html for relative values.)

-MarkM-

You seem to be confusing GRouPcoin with DeVCoin.

DeVCoin gives 90% of the coins to people who work on free open source projects. GRouPcoin was initially used to prototype various things on the way to developing DeVCoin but once the method to be used in DeVCoin was decided GRouPcoin went back to being just a slightly modified BiTCoin, its modifications being a more-adaptive (and timetravel bug fixed) difficulty adjustment and a constant 50 coins per block mining of coins.

(DeVCoin mints 50,000 coins per block and also never lowers the number minted per block.)

You seem to be talking about DeVCoin when you say it does not work. Did you put its receiver_*.csv files where it can find them? They are provided because one of the early websites, used for the early receiver files, no longer exists thus clients can no longer get a majority consensus of websites as to which versions of those early files are the correct ones.

-MarkM-

You can eventually force a coin to survive on transaction fees today.  This is another reason you should not be so upset at early adopters, 1/2 the coins are still out there.  I would not call it brilliant, it is really a flaw.  However, it did get a lot of interest in the coin.  Someday the coin is going to have to survive on transaction fees.  Basically you guessing whether it can.

I agreed with most of what you said, until you got here. At this point you completely went off the rails for me. Mining differs from what the Bernanke does in several ways. Benji types some buttons and trillions appear, yet I'm a miner typing right now and where are my BTC? I have to invest in infrastructure and electricity to produce BTC. Also there are restrictions placed upon mining(difficulty, reward halving, power costs, hard coin limit, etc...) that the fed does not have.

...and the system will eventually be forced to survive on transaction fees when it's vibrant enough. It's really a brilliant setup.

That's just silly.
Did you play Diablo3? There, items are traded for millions of gold and people are accustomed to it. In wow the situation is entire different with much smaller numbers. But the end result is the same.
We simply substitute the zeros in our heads and arrive at the same behaviour.

1. Bitcoin is fair.  Somebody had to make that pizza risk it on bitcoin.  Over 1,000,000 of BTC are traded monthly on MTGOX.  Most of the early adopters have sold their bitcoin.  People have bought them.  People have advertised them, billboards have been put up, commercials paid for.  It has been on t.v. shows.   There once was a coin you propose fairbrix. 

2. The fairest way to make a coin is to pre-mine them all.   That way the economy grows on its own.  The supply is limited with no inflation and things can really grow as people adopt the medium of exchange.  Mining is no different than Ben Bernanke printing money to give to his banking buddies.   The system should survive on transaction fees.

You know, an easier solution might just be to reduce the coins in the reward. One should not underestimate the power of people's psychological reaction to big numbers. The idea that some PPC holders have hundreds of thousands if not millions of coins is quite silly and psychologically people will over estimate the value or underestimate the value based on how many zeros there are and where the decimal point it. Terracoin seems interesting because early adopters will have a tough time accumulating millions of coins. The difficulty adjusts fast to compensate for huge miners that might jump on board, and the pay out is 20TRC per block, which is less then bitcoin.

Someone dumping 1000 coins makes a far less dramatic impression psychologically on the members of the market then dumping 100000000 coins does.

Oh okay. Didn't read the thread carefully at all. Sorry.

That last part isn't more dangerous then all the small people freaking out and dumping their coins. You can't really prevent people from selling unless the exchanges agree to close to halt trading (done in the real world). You're talking about creating a coin that is somewhat insulated from the realities of supply and demand. I venture that the largest holders of coins in any of these currencies are not early miners: they are early hoarders. People who buy up the coin immediately and then dump. There is no protocol change that can avoid this.

But I did
What it meant is that it would have a similar effect, block times could either be variable thus transaction times would be less reliable or it could be based on the soft difficulty model I mentioned earlier.

I said nothing about the timing of coin generation. I see no reason to modify it. Difficulty is increased or decreased so that one block arrives every 10 minutes on average.
I only discussed the block reward.

paraipan please leave, you are clearly trying to distract people from seeing the solutions already there.

We are not trying to copy exponential inflation but find a more fair (or call it natural) initial distribution of currency. The one gold really follows that is.

Would-be adopters could have opened their ears a little more when early adopters "preached" the bitcoin to them. Now they can have some bits at a fair price, or go elsewhere and start Inflatacoin.

You could completely omit difficulty based on hashrate and simply make it follow moores law. Transaction times would be faster if more people mine as well as inflation.
Inflating away the currency in a hardcoded way wouldn't improve a thing however (I sense some slight concern trolling here... bad cunicula bad! ) especially if it should be in a exponential way.
One thing to keep in mind is that bitcoin is often said to follow the mining gold over the time periods which isn't strictly true since the overall gold production was less during early periods, has a peak sometime around now and is projected to decline from there on.  The big difference here is that improvement in technology results in a overall higher production rate.




Yeah, yeah I know.... that was meant serious though.